Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 12/15/06, Justin Erenkrantz <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/06, Lieven Govaerts <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > When is 1.5.0 scheduled for release?
>> Whenever it's ready. =) -- justin
> Which is *exactly* the reason why I don't like the strict coupling
> between features and releases...
> Our release process has been far from optimal since 1.2 and I was
> hoping to propose small releases to make releasing less hard. Seeing
> the discussion here makes me believe all of you are headed exactly in
> the oposite direction. How much harder do you want it to become to get
> a release out the door?
The idea of smaller, more-often releases may sound appealing at a high
level, but don't forget to factor in the fact that with greater density
of releases comes the following undesirables:
* a greater push to keep more of those release streams active (so we
don't over-burden sysadmins with the need to upgrade), which means
more maintenance overhead. Today we basically keep two release
streams alive. If that increases to three or four, there's more
* potentially shorter time in the limelight for revved APIs. Our
longer release cycles allow us to bundle multiple changes to the
same API into a single rev of that API, which reduces maintenance
I'm not voicing an opinion about the release process either way -- just
want to make sure that we consider things fully.
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Fri Dec 15 21:02:46 2006